Afternoon:
10°c
More questions than answers in troubling conflict
Robert Fox, Defence Correspondent13 Nov 2008
Britain must stay in Afghanistan for the "long haul", to coin a cliché, and the fight against the Taliban/al Qaeda there is vital to Britain's national security. So said defence secretary John Hutton in his first major policy speech, entitled Afghanistan - Worth the Sacrifice, on Armistice Day.
The speech impressed many. But impressions are not enough. The problem was that the answers threatened to be overwhelmed by the waves of questions, which just keep coming, rather like the supply of fresh Taliban recruits.
Mr Hutton argued that it would be "unthinkable" to allow a return of the Taliban to rule in Kabul, inevitably bringing with them the high command of al Qaeda. It was essential to go on shoring up the creaky regime of Hamid Karzai, build government, develop economy and provide security with an expanded Afghan army of 134,000 and national police force of 82,000.
Extra money would be needed for the expanded recruiting and training programme - but there is little clue where this might come from.
If al Qaeda got a major foothold again in Afghanistan, then all of us would be threatened. But new variant al Qaeda has been up, running and causing all kinds of mischief from its bases in northern Pakistan for months and even years.
According to reports from the ground in Waziristan, the al Qaeda command there is training new teams of foreign recruits, particularly Turks, who will then infiltrate northern and western Europe.
What can be done about such groups? What can be done about the tribal areas of northern Pakistan - the deep bases for training, recruiting and arming, the centre of gravity of the Taliban militias now attacking in Afghanistan? What is the chance of bringing long-term stability and security in Afghanistan, if northern Pakistan threatens to implode? These questions were left hanging in the air after Mr Hutton's speech. Equally urgent is the problem of keeping Karzai's regime on its feet. A big test will be the presidential elections due next September. Postponement or cancellation would be a lethal blow to the credibility of the administration.
The main hope of Britain and its allies such as Canada and Australia is that the new US overall theatre commander, General David Petraeus, can generate momentum with his new strategic plan for Afghanistan, due in the next month. Even so, British troops will be going to Helmand to fight the Taliban for several years to come.
The pressure this puts on young service men and women is graphically illustrated by the diary of Major Will Pike of the opening months of the campaign in Helmand, which has just been published in his family's military memoirs. The constant threat of ambush and attack puts years on even the toughest young soldiers in a matter of weeks - and this should concern us all.
The whole notion of "long haul" for British forces in Afghanistan should be questioned if it is short-hand for commitment to an open-ended conflict, instead of a strategic plan to achieve a realistic goal in a realistic time frame. Our political masters might heed the warnings of sages such as Henry Kissinger and Sun Tzu, the philosopher-general of ancient China, that long wars more often than not end in defeat.
Reader views (1)
Why stay ?
They're exporting record amounts of narcotics unhindered.
The "Western Alliance" hold on government and security grows daily worse with more and more territory being reclaimed by the Taliban.
It is glaringly obvious, agreed by senior figures on the ground there, that the "war" will eventually be lost.
The inevitable consequence is that more lives will be fruitlessly lost and Britain's reputation on the International scene seriously scarred.
WHY - because a few scummy politicians won't admit they were wrong - they prefer human sacrifice.
- Sean, Coventry UK, 13/11/2008 11:39
Report abuse
